As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 03:07:15 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 01:25:48 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On the failings of scholasticism and its shortfalls, and hence of natural law:

Quote

"The Scholastic Method," like any other variant of that chimera "Systematic Theology," assumes the "system" (Platonic, Neo-Platonic, or in Thomas' case Aristotelian) to be both "true and valid" philosophically and then approaching the Biblical text (note "text" as distinct from "the revelation of Christ") in order to form a "true and valid SYSTEM of thought ABOUT God." Whatever in the biblical revelation (or text) which does not "fit" one's "system" is either lopped off or ignored or deplored as superstition or some such derogatory term. Thus, "The Scholastic Method," even before Aquinas, was simply a subset of intellectualizing without holiness of life. In Thomas' case, he DID lead a holy life, an life of exemplary holiness, but he was still mentally "captured" by Aristotle and Scholasticism. The direct heirs of Aquinas are not modern Roman theologians but fundamentalist Protestants who attempt to "proof-text" their opinions with masses of isolated verses, out of context of the whole biblical book, the biblical revelation, and the Gospel Tradition of the Church.

This is the struggle St. Symeon the New Theologian had with the theologian Stephan of Imperial Court, and for which cause he was cast into exile: Symeon claiming that experience of God was superior to "thoughts about God"; same conflict between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam over hesychasm & the Uncreated Light....knowledge of God come not from intellectualizing, not by the use of reason, as the scholastics would have it, but through holiness-- the purifying of oneself through asceticism, which, within the context of the Orthodox Faith, leads to illumination and glorification. That is what Father Romanides means by an empirical theology, which he regards as a positive science, in that the experience of a purified Saint seeing the Uncreated Energies of God and being thus illuminated can be repeated by others, following the same methods. St. Anthony the Great of Egypt was not an educated man, yet he understood by his experience with God that the Arian creed--widespread at that time--was false. And those same methods have been followed by many, many Church Fathers and Saints right up into modern times. Those methods too guided the Prophets of the Old Testament in their revelations about God, which are at times difficult to decipher since the indescribable was being "described." Father Romanides is quite blunt at times:"The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers." Orthodox theology is the science of God and the spiritual world. Scholasticism, by contrast, is mere intellectual speculation, based upon nothing but imagination.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On the failings of scholasticism and its shortfalls, and hence of natural law:

Quote

"The Scholastic Method," like any other variant of that chimera "Systematic Theology," assumes the "system" (Platonic, Neo-Platonic, or in Thomas' case Aristotelian) to be both "true and valid" philosophically and then approaching the Biblical text (note "text" as distinct from "the revelation of Christ") in order to form a "true and valid SYSTEM of thought ABOUT God." Whatever in the biblical revelation (or text) which does not "fit" one's "system" is either lopped off or ignored or deplored as superstition or some such derogatory term. Thus, "The Scholastic Method," even before Aquinas, was simply a subset of intellectualizing without holiness of life. In Thomas' case, he DID lead a holy life, an life of exemplary holiness, but he was still mentally "captured" by Aristotle and Scholasticism. The direct heirs of Aquinas are not modern Roman theologians but fundamentalist Protestants who attempt to "proof-text" their opinions with masses of isolated verses, out of context of the whole biblical book, the biblical revelation, and the Gospel Tradition of the Church.

This is the struggle St. Symeon the New Theologian had with the theologian Stephan of Imperial Court, and for which cause he was cast into exile: Symeon claiming that experience of God was superior to "thoughts about God"; same conflict between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam over hesychasm & the Uncreated Light....knowledge of God come not from intellectualizing, not by the use of reason, as the scholastics would have it, but through holiness-- the purifying of oneself through asceticism, which, within the context of the Orthodox Faith, leads to illumination and glorification. That is what Father Romanides means by an empirical theology, which he regards as a positive science, in that the experience of a purified Saint seeing the Uncreated Energies of God and being thus illuminated can be repeated by others, following the same methods. St. Anthony the Great of Egypt was not an educated man, yet he understood by his experience with God that the Arian creed--widespread at that time--was false. And those same methods have been followed by many, many Church Fathers and Saints right up into modern times. Those methods too guided the Prophets of the Old Testament in their revelations about God, which are at times difficult to decipher since the indescribable was being "described." Father Romanides is quite blunt at times:"The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the union of associations of scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite with astrologers." Orthodox theology is the science of God and the spiritual world. Scholasticism, by contrast, is mere intellectual speculation, based upon nothing but imagination.

But...I suppose since it is from a professional/authority it jest MUST be so...

appeal to authority is a fallacy. At least outside the Vatican.

Don't know what "the pay grade" is of those who wrote it. What they wrote, however, shows its own worth.

Any complaint of any substance?

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 02:16:18 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

That's nice. It still doesn't deal with the issue of oxygen in water versus oxygen in air, and oxygen's "end." And having no mechanism to determine its "end" among all the range of possibilities, "operatio sequitur esse" non sequitur.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

That's nice. It still doesn't deal with the issue of oxygen in water versus oxygen in air, and oxygen's "end." And having no mechanism to determine its "end" among all the range of possibilities, "operatio sequitur esse" non sequitur.

It absolutely deals with them. The end of oxygen is to behave like oxygen, everything that that entails, and not like something else. Oxygen has certain potencies inherent in its nature, and not others. That determines its final cause or end. ONCE AGAIN: The final cause of oxygen is to do the things (plural) that oxygen does, and nothing else. You seem to be suggesting that in order for final causality to work, a substance must be ordered to do one thing and only one thing. But that is patently absurd. Final causality is to do the things inherent in a substance's nature.

Izzy, I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

That's nice. It still doesn't deal with the issue of oxygen in water versus oxygen in air, and oxygen's "end." And having no mechanism to determine its "end" among all the range of possibilities, "operatio sequitur esse" non sequitur.

It absolutely deals with them. The end of oxygen is to behave like oxygen, everything that that entails, and not like something else. Oxygen has certain potencies inherent in its nature, and not others. That determines its final cause or end. ONCE AGAIN: The final cause of oxygen is to do the things (plural) that oxygen does, and nothing else. You seem to be suggesting that in order for final causality to work, a substance must be ordered to do one thing and only one thing. But that is patently absurd. Final causality is to do the things inherent in a substance's nature.

That is patently absured, that oxygen be ordered to be in water and be in air (or for that matter, be in rust, another one of those things that oxygen does, along with being in combustion, another thing oxygen does) at one time, ordered to do one thing and only one thing. Your friend Lactantius, however, as cited above, with his scholastic appeal to "natural law" on the matter at hand, must be arguing his objection to contraception de absurdo rather than ad absurdum.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 03:19:15 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

That's nice. It still doesn't deal with the issue of oxygen in water versus oxygen in air, and oxygen's "end." And having no mechanism to determine its "end" among all the range of possibilities, "operatio sequitur esse" non sequitur.

It absolutely deals with them. The end of oxygen is to behave like oxygen, everything that that entails, and not like something else. Oxygen has certain potencies inherent in its nature, and not others. That determines its final cause or end. ONCE AGAIN: The final cause of oxygen is to do the things (plural) that oxygen does, and nothing else. You seem to be suggesting that in order for final causality to work, a substance must be ordered to do one thing and only one thing. But that is patently absurd. Final causality is to do the things inherent in a substance's nature.

That is patently absured, that oxygen be ordered to be in water and be in air (or for that matter, be in rust, another one of those things that oxygen does, along with being in combustion, another thing oxygen does) at one time, ordered to do one thing and only one thing. Your friend Lactantius, however, as cited above, with his scholastic appeal to "natural law" on the matter at hand, must be arguing his objection to contraception de absurdo rather than ad absurdum.

So you think that is absurd that Oxygen can only do some things and not others? Is that what you are suggesting? You think it is absurd that oxygen which does not have the natural potency to produce chickens, does not produce chickens?I suppose I don't understand why you think it is absurd that a substance is only limited to certain acts. That is all we mean by final causality.

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

As for final causality, I a have deeper understanding of what it means, and how it can be defended from skeptics. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas argues that things necessarily act for an end, or else one thing would not follow from the actions of an agent, more than another. For example, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms always combine to form water, and never anything else. This is simply a realistic view of the world.

Only if you think the end of oxygen and hydrogen is to combine to form water, which doesn't leave much for us, even the fishes, to breathe.

It's one of the ends. All of the ends of a thing are ultimately ordered to the final cause of serving God's purpose.

True enough, but there goes your realist view of the world, as you cannot say the intermediate end of oxygen more than another.

When you are talking about the final cause of an immaterial substance, its natural end is simply to act according to its nature, i.e. to do things that these non-organic substances are supposed to do. Thus, oxygen is simply supposed to behave like oxygen and not gold. This means that the final cause is limiting the actions of a particular thing to a certain range of possibilities. Oxygen will always behave like oxygen, and will never suddenly turn into a puppy. This is because oxygen doesn't have a potency that would immediately direct it to becoming a puppy. Thus, I know the final cause of oxygen, by knowing its nature and what it is that it is that Oxygen does. This comes from the dictum operatio sequitur esse.

That's nice. It still doesn't deal with the issue of oxygen in water versus oxygen in air, and oxygen's "end." And having no mechanism to determine its "end" among all the range of possibilities, "operatio sequitur esse" non sequitur.

It absolutely deals with them. The end of oxygen is to behave like oxygen, everything that that entails, and not like something else. Oxygen has certain potencies inherent in its nature, and not others. That determines its final cause or end. ONCE AGAIN: The final cause of oxygen is to do the things (plural) that oxygen does, and nothing else. You seem to be suggesting that in order for final causality to work, a substance must be ordered to do one thing and only one thing. But that is patently absurd. Final causality is to do the things inherent in a substance's nature.

That is patently absured, that oxygen be ordered to be in water and be in air (or for that matter, be in rust, another one of those things that oxygen does, along with being in combustion, another thing oxygen does) at one time, ordered to do one thing and only one thing. Your friend Lactantius, however, as cited above, with his scholastic appeal to "natural law" on the matter at hand, must be arguing his objection to contraception de absurdo rather than ad absurdum.

So you think that is absurd that Oxygen can only do some things and not others?

No, I find it absurd/devoid of meaning saying that since oxygen can do a whole range of things, one can pick one as its final cause, or that the tautology "oxygen is what oxygen does" says anything.

Now move that on to another thing oxygen does (with intermediate causes), produce semen, and try to limit it to one final cause, i.e. conception.

I suppose I don't understand why you think it is absurd that a substance is only limited to certain acts. That is all we mean by final causality.

then your scholastic defense of natural law falls, and with it its dictates on contraception.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

or acting like semen, only one of hundreds of millions possible to perform the act of conception, which neither distinguishes that one spermazoa from its brothers, nor makes the latter, performing other acts, into gold, a tree, or a chicken. And even that one spermazoa doesn't produce a baby suddenly with no intermediate cause.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

or acting like semen, only one of hundreds of millions possible to perform the act of conception, which neither distinguishes that one spermazoa from its brothers, nor makes the latter, performing other acts, into gold, a tree, or a chicken. And even that one spermazoa doesn't produce a baby suddenly with no intermediate cause.

None of what you do with this thread makes sense, al Misry. You are convinced that your brilliant analysis makes an iron-clad case against natural law...I suppose we should be glad that you are happy with your little occupation here, but it is an otherwise potentially excellent topic.

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

or acting like semen, only one of hundreds of millions possible to perform the act of conception, which neither distinguishes that one spermazoa from its brothers, nor makes the latter, performing other acts, into gold, a tree, or a chicken. And even that one spermazoa doesn't produce a baby suddenly with no intermediate cause.

None of what you do with this thread makes sense, al Misry. You are convinced that your brilliant analysis makes an iron-clad case against natural law...I suppose we should be glad that you are happy with your little occupation here, but it is an otherwise potentially excellent topic.

None of what you do with this thread makes any sense. Convinced of your iron-clad belief in natural law, you make no analysis, brilliant or otherwise. You seem to be happy with your little occupation of just posting "not so!"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given all the issues about "natural ends," I thought I would refresh my memory on Aquinas' thoughts on woman.

Quote

Article 1. Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.

Objection 2. Further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Genesis 3:16): "Thou shalt be under the man's power"; and Gregory says that, "Where there is no sin, there is no inequality." But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.

Objection 3. Further, occasions of sin should be cut off. But God foresaw that the woman would be an occasion of sin to man. Therefore He should not have made woman.

On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:18): "It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself."

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

Reply to Objection 2. Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (96, 3).

Reply to Objection 3. If God had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect. Nor was it fitting for the common good to be destroyed in order that individual evil might be avoided; especially as God is so powerful that He can direct any evil to a good end.

I was reminded of this in defending the Faith with someone over intersex humans. Part of the discussion dealt with the fact that we all start out as girls, as far as our bodies are concerned (one of the ways to be "intersex" is complete Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), where the body cannot process testosterone and so develops into a female body but with XY chromosomes. It is the reason for sex testing in the Olympics, for instance). Makes Aquinas' assertion "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex" all that more ridiculous, in addition to being already unscriptural and borderline blasphemous (and yes, I can see St. Maximos erring by agreeing with Aquinas on this issue, though I don't recall if he did).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Papist periodically does his best to try to unravel the total lack of definition and illogic in evidence here, but it is such a muddle that it really is not worth his good efforts.

The real test of the worth of the project is that NOBODY else even tries any more.

Because it is in the Catholic-Orthodox section, I think it does not hurt to have a Catholic periodically come on board and simply yell.........TRIPE....and then allow the juvenile come-back to speak for itself.

Well, let's see what Pope Paul of Rome (or Card. Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II of Rome, co-author of the adopted Minority Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control) means by "divine law," the revealed or the natural.

Going through and putting in red that teaching on marriage/child-bearing/rearing which the Vatican based (or attempted to base) on Revelation, general appeals to authority based on revelation (but not on point on married life) in blue, and in bold those pronouncements based on Natural Law.

7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects.And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.

This was a tough call, given that this introductory paragraph is, in the main, so vague.

Quote

God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (See 1 Jn 4. 8 ) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (Eph 3. 15)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

Married Love

9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.

This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.

It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1072 [TPS XI, 292-293])

HV doesn't cite any scripture, but it is clear, and it can easily be copiously documented, that it is basing this on various scriptures that explicitly deal with marriage.

Quote

Responsible Parenthood

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. ( See St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, art. 2)

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50- 5 1: AAS 58 ( 1 966) 1070-1073 [TPS XI, 292-293])

Again, this is vague enough that it can be described as scriptural, while still (as indicated by the citations) conforming to the notions of "Natural Law" (hence the bold red. The black bold makes no pretense, referring to the Summa which itself talks only of "Natural Law") which HV then picks up explicitly

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 09:21:39 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Just came across this, thanks to Fabio. I'm just putting up the google translation, as I don't have the time right now:

Quote

What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?

1. Faith and Reason

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain the faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, it is not based on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave to his followers believe. Do not refuse the support of physics, biology or chemistry in the teachings of the Church. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by the intellectual achievements of man. She does not bow before such things, and does not change the thinking of the Christian faith because of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great warned the young monks on the use of Greek philosophy, so that the utilizassem as the bee uses the flower. "Take only the 'honey' - the truth - that God planted in the world to prepare man for the coming of the Lord."

For example, the Greeks had the doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John begins, / "In the beginning was the Word" / (Logos in Greek). For pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians, but a principle, a power, a power by which "God" created and governs the world.

The Church Fatherspointed to the similarity between the Logos and the Logos Bible of Greek Philosophy as a sign of Divine Providence. The difference is attributed to man's sin and the weakness of human intellect. This recalls the words of the Apostle Paul: / "Take ye heed, that no one deceive you with vain philosophies and sophistries based on human traditions, in the rudiments of the world, instead of relying on Christ." / (Col. 2: .Moreover, Catholicism gives a high value due to the human. His story shows us the consequences of that trust. For example, in the Middle Ages, during the twelfth century, the theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas "joined" Christianity with the philosophy of Aristotle. From this period, Hispanics began to swing like never before thanks to this respect for human wisdom, alternating between radical theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

The use of science/philosophy to create, rather than defend, the Church's beliefs lays at the source of the problem of the Vatican's "Natural Law."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070 [TPS XI, 291-292].)It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.(See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560;Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.)

The appeal to "experience" and a vague "natural adaption" are part of the same argument of "the precepts of the natural law". Similar points could be made from Faith, both Scripture and Tradition. The red is again is vague enough for the claim to have a basis in Scripture and Tradition (Casti connubi did a much better job at that attempt), as done in an Orthodox manner by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Third Rome's words, based on the Faith, providing a contrast to the Vatican in Old Rome trying to base its teaching on natural law theory:

Quote

X. 4. A special inner closeness between the family and the Church is evident already from the fact that in Holy Scriptures Christ describes Himself as a bridegroom (Mt. 9:15; 25:1-13; Lk. 12:35-36), while the Church is presented as His wife and bride (Eph. 5:24; Rev. 21:9). Similarly, St. Clement of Alexandria describes the family as a church and a house of God, while St. John Chrysostom calls the family «a lesser church». «I shall also say», writes the holy father, «that marriage is a mysterious transformation of the Church». A man and a woman who love each other, united in marriage and aspiring for Christ form a domestic church. Children become fruits of their love and communion, and their birth and upbringing belong, according to the Orthodox teaching, to one of the most important goals of marriage.

«Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward», exclaims the Psalmist (Ps. 127:3). St. Paul taught the saving nature of childbirth (1 Tim. 2:13). He also urged fathers: «Provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord» (Eph. 6:4). «Children are not an occasional acquirement; we are responsible for their salvation… The negligence of children is the greatest of all sins as it leads to extreme impiety… There is no excuse for us if our children are corrupt», St. John Chrysostom exhorts. St. Ephrem the Syrian teaches: «Blessed are those who bring up their children in piety». «A true father is not the one who has begotten children but the one who has brought them up and taught them well», writes St. Tikhon Zadonsky. «Parents are responsible first of all for the upbringing of their children and cannot ascribe blame for their bad education to anyone but themselves», preached the Holy Martyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev. «Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land», reads the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12). In the Old Testament, disrespect for parents is regarded as the greatest transgression (Ex. 21:15, 17; Prov. 20:20; 30:17). The New Testament teaches children to obey their parents with love: «Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord» (Col. 3:20).

The family as a domestic church is a single organism whose members live and build their relations on the basis of the law of love. The experience of family relations teaches a person to overcome sinful egoism and lays the foundations for his sense of civil duty. It is in the family as a school of devotion that the right attitude to one's neighbours and therefore to one's people and society as a whole is formed. The living continuity of generations, beginning in family, is continued in the love of the forefathers and fatherland, in the feeling of participation in history. This is why it is so dangerous to distort the traditional parents-child relationship, which, unfortunately, have been in many ways endangered by the contemporary way of life. The diminished social significance of motherhood and fatherhood compared to the progress made by men and women in the professional field leads to the treatment of children as an unnecessary burden, contributing also to the development of alienation and antagonism between generations. The role of family in the formation of the personality is exceptional; no other social institution can replace it. The erosion of family relations inevitably entails the deformation of the normal development of children and leaves a long, and to a certain extent indelible trace in them for life.

Children who have parents who have abandoned them have become a lamentable disaster of society today. Thousands of abandoned children who fill orphanages and sometimes find themselves in streets point to a profound illness of society. Giving these children spiritual and material help and seeing to it that they are involved in religious and social life, the Church at the same time considers it one of her most important duties to raise parents' awareness of their calling, which would exclude the tragedy of the abandoned child....

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

or acting like semen, only one of hundreds of millions possible to perform the act of conception, which neither distinguishes that one spermazoa from its brothers, nor makes the latter, performing other acts, into gold, a tree, or a chicken. And even that one spermazoa doesn't produce a baby suddenly with no intermediate cause.

Again you are missing the point. Just because some things fail to reach their final cause, does not mean that they don't have one. Outside lines of causality may accidentally intervene and prevent some susbtance from reaching its final cause. But since you believe in finally causality anyway, I don't know why are you are bringing up this point.

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church,is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source."Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God."(See encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331]. )

« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 02:08:49 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm trying to understand your position a bit better, so I am going to ask you a question. Do you believe that casuality is absolutey random so that oxygen can suddenly produce a baby with no intermediate causes?

No.

Then you believe in final causality, because all we mean by final causality, is that a thing is limited by its nature to be capable of performing certain acts and not others. You can say it is direct to these acts and not others by only possessing certain potencies. This is no gaurantee that it will achieve those ends. But those are the potencies that are there. Each of these acts is subsumed under the umbrella of the final cause, acting like oxygen, or acting like gold, or acting like a tree.

or acting like semen, only one of hundreds of millions possible to perform the act of conception, which neither distinguishes that one spermazoa from its brothers, nor makes the latter, performing other acts, into gold, a tree, or a chicken. And even that one spermazoa doesn't produce a baby suddenly with no intermediate cause.

Just because some things fail to reach their final cause, does not mean that they don't have one.

The problem with sperm is that one of them to reaching "its final cause" depends on millions more NOT to reach theirs, if you limit sperms final to causing entering the egg. And then there is that problem of frustrating all those from reaching their final ends by chastity, unless you count killing of sperm in the body and breaking them down is seen as their "final cause." Which would be odd, as it serves no useful purpose-other than getting them out of the way for new sperm-something that causes problems, for instance, for men who have vascetomies.

I'm not going into the issues of sperm causing bonding between the woman and her inseminator (hopefully her husband), releasing endorphyns etc. as the research I don't think has become established yet.

But since you believe in finally causality anyway, I don't know why are you are bringing up this point.

LOL. So if we agree on something, it must be true?

Finally causality? You talking about "telos"? Not the same thing as the determinism of natural law theory and its "ends."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

Orthodox priest who says so. As opposed to (an) Orthodox priest who says no (except sometimes). (Okay, okay, I know he's a bishop, but can't we exercise a little economia here for the sake of humor?) A man in opposition with himself?

(And just so everyone's clear about this, I mean *no* disrespect whatsoever to Met. Kallistos--none! I do, in fact, very much admire the man. And his office.)

« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 04:46:53 PM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

post on this thread, I just see some one screaming and shaking their fists. I don't know why. But this is what I always see in my mind.

you sure it isn't in the mirror?

« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 05:37:25 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

He also wrote in 1963 as a priest, if not a layman. What you quote laterly he writes as an Orthodox bishop.

The artificial distinction of "artificial methods of birth control" is also not an Orthodox one: those who opposed contraception, opposed the rhythm method as well, as did the Fathers that the apologists of Humanae Vitae depend on.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Everytime I see Izzy post on this thread, I just see some one screaming and shaking their fists. I don't know why. But this is what I always see in my mind.

See my p.m. to you.

Secrets?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

Orthodox priests who say so. As opposed to those Orthodox priests who say no.

Like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Martini?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

The artificial distinction of "artificial methods of birth control" is also not an Orthodox one: those who opposed contraception, opposed the rhythm method as well, as did the Fathers that the apologists of Humanae Vitae depend on.

In that same article that I posted, it said the Ecumenical Patriarch of the time said he was in full agreement with Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Of course, you'll probably just come back and say that you don't have to listen to him either.

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

So you're free to just disregard your hierarchs when what they say is inconvenient?

I'm free to disregard the hierarch if he's wrong. But not "just free": there is still a question of obedience, which is due as long as and as far as it doesn't imperil the Faith, no matter how inconvenient. Of course, the burden of obedience is less because his grace is not my bishop, nor in my Holy Synod.

Convenience seems to be the hallmark of your "magisterium." That's why it refuses to indicate whether "Humanae Vitae" is ex cathedra or not:it would be too inconvenient to be pinned down and on the record (the Winnipeg Statement prevents it from falling under the "ordinary magisterium"). Better to have an aura of infallibility. That way it can sweep under rug if its dogma "develops" in a different direction (that of the vast majority of its followers), like it sweeps things like "Unam Sanctam" under its Vatican II rug.

Speaking of inconvenient facts:the 92%+ percent of your coreligionists who use contraception, the many, many priests of yours who at best will not teach HV and some outright will contradict it (I've met and known a number of those, and I don't think I got them all), the bishops like those who signed the Winnipeg statement and then reiterated it and Cardinal Martini.....far more inconvenient than the opinion of a single priest on what the Orthodox Church teaches. Which brings up:

He also wrote in 1963 as a priest, if not a layman. What you quote laterly he writes as an Orthodox bishop.

As a Priest, you don't think he would have a fairly good understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Purely a question of authority. As it turns out, in 1963 his authority was no more than mine (perhaps less: he was Orthodox only five years then. I've been here alone five years). If he had been a priest, a fairly good understanding confers neither infallibility nor the authority to speak for the Church definitively. If his grace had written it as a metropolitan, it would be due more deference, but then again not dispositive.

I'm sure that those who wrote the majority report on contraception, bypassed for Humanae Vitae, had quite a good understanding of Vatican dogma-why else would your supreme pontiff empanel them?

Are you going to admit, then, that you must accept everything your supreme pontiff says, or are you going to continue to insist that we treat every one of our bishops as a supreme pontiff?

The artificial distinction of "artificial methods of birth control" is also not an Orthodox one: those who opposed contraception, opposed the rhythm method as well, as did the Fathers that the apologists of Humanae Vitae depend on.

In that same article that I posted, it said the Ecumenical Patriarch of the time said he was in full agreement with Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Of course, you'll probably just come back and say that you don't have to listen to him either.

Why is it that ya'll protest that you don't believe everything your supreme pontiff says is infallible, and yet think we are bound by every fool thing the EP says? (I ignore what the same EP had to say on jurisdiction of the OCA, palpably wrong as he was. The Patriarch of Jerusalem refused to let him set foot in Palestine for the lifting anathema sherade.).

A telegraph to a heretic, yes, don't have to listen to that, any more than we have to listen to what he said over coffee. AFAIK, he never issued an encyclical, either on his own authority or that with his Holy Synod. No agreement or statement AFAIK on his authority, ex cathedra as it were. If it makes you feel better, some Orthodox do repeat the telegraph story with approval, including my own priest (the audio of him doing so is on line). It doesn't seem to have impressed the episcopate of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception

I wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).

I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:

"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."

However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:

"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."

Wyatt, are you aware of any Eastern Orthodox canons which have prohibited artificial contraception?

Btw, Wyatt's article states:

Quote

By way of example, consider the statements made by distinguished theologians of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople - the oldest and most respected of the Orthodox churches. In his monumental book, The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos Ware, probably one of the Church's most famous contemporary authors, wrote

Met. Kallistos is very famous, but I'm not sure as a theologian, if indeed he is one (in contrast to Met. John Zizoulas, for instance). Constantinople is not the oldest Orthodox Church-that would be Jerusalem-and most respected might be overdoing it a bit. I'm also not sure how "monumental" I would call the bishop's "Orthodox Church."

Btw, Wytt's link does not attribute the article, a no-no. It's from the pen of Taras Baytsar, a Ukrainian in submission to the Vatican off in L'viv, where all sorts of strange ideas about the Vatican and the East spring forth.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth